So, to choose one of your staments I would choose #2 as having always existed, and with that conclude (based on your assertion) that it's a form of faith.

It is important to recognize when your beliefs are based on faith and when they are based on evidence. As Percy points out in Message 320:

quote: ... If you accept ID as a matter of faith, and if you don't think it should be taught in science class, then I don't think many would have any problem with that. But if you not only accept ID as a matter of faith but also think it is science deserving of attention in public school science classrooms, as Dover, Pennsylvania, did back in 2004, then all science minded folk would have a big problem with this, and would push you to describe ID's qualifications as science.

That's the gist of the basic ID argument -- whether or not ID belongs in science classes. As a form of faith it does not. It is perfectly fine to have public education cover it in something like a comparative religion or a philosophy of religions (humanities) class, but science classes should (continue) to be restricted to science subjects, where knowledge is gained via the scientific method and is based on objective empirical evidence.

Of course, when you talk about ID is such humanities classes, then they are not necessarily restricted to any one religious view.

So what if it takes faith to agree with ID, when we look at the complexity of things I suppose we are choosing between only two things, to design or not to design. Being that im a Christian I choose to believe we were designed. ...

Now here is where I have trouble with the average argument from design approach -- the assumption (faith) that it supports (only?) one specific faith. Please see Is ID properly pursued? for my discussion of this aspect and the potential pitfalls of an incomplete commitment to the design argument.

Hi Catholic Scientist, you can read if you cannot respond (you can message me), so I will lay out my view:

No problem, RAZD, I hope all is well.

Indeed all is well, I had my 15 mo checkup since last chemo and have all clear from the doctor. Spending too much time remodeling the house and not enough biking.

Ergo, if someone accepted ID from evidence or proof, then it would not be faith.

Except that ...

... if the evidence is not objective empirical evidence, then one is taking on faith that it does represent what you think it does.

Message 336: If some dude sees some lights in the sky and thinks they're aliens and comes to the conclusion that aliens exist, then it would be wrong to say that he has faith that aliens exist.

Here the assumption is that lights=aliens, while the open-minded skeptic view would be that it could be aliens, or it could be something else, neither of which are confirmed (pending further evidence). Going from could be to IS is a leap of faith.

Message 326: They have provided the evidence. We've seen it here where people have expressed that when they see all the beauty in the world they are convinced that it must have been designed. That is their evidence and they are comming to a conclusion. That is not a position of faith.

Again, going from a position that it could be designed to it IS designed is a leap of faith.

And ...

... if proof is all you have, then it is a logical construction that relies on the assumption (leap of faith?) that the premises are true in order to reach a true conclusion.

If - and only if (imho) - objective empirical evidence is found, then no, it would no longer be a matter of faith.

Personally, I think logic alone (ie with an absence of objective empirical evidence) is only good enough for making rationally formulated opinions, based on what you know and what you believe to be true, and cannot rise above being based on (one foot in) opinions\assumptions\beliefs.

Indeed all is well, I had my 15 mo checkup since last chemo and have all clear from the doctor.

Hey alright! Congradulations.

Spending too much time remodeling the house and not enough biking.

You gotta get your priorities crooked!

Ergo, if someone accepted ID from evidence or proof, then it would not be faith.

Except that ...

... if the evidence is not objective empirical evidence, then one is taking on faith that it does represent what you think it does.

That and this:

If - and only if (imho) - objective empirical evidence is found, then no, it would no longer be a matter of faith.

Are the seemingly-false dichotomy that I was referring to in Message 307:

quote:And you also seem to be dichotomizing it too much for my preferences, in that your leaning too much towards: "its either science or its faith"

...

Here the assumption is that lights=aliens, while the open-minded skeptic view would be that it could be aliens, or it could be something else, neither of which are confirmed (pending further evidence). Going from could be to IS is a leap of faith.

That could just make them not an open-minded skeptic while still not making their position a matter of faith.

And that is why I said that you're talking about a different faith than I am, again from Message 307:

quote:I think you're diluting the meaning of "faith" here, from the kind of usage people mean when they say, like, that they have faith in Jesus.

Further, you're opening a slippery slope here where anything and everything could be considered a leap of faith. You have to have faith that your not a brain in a jar... But as I said, I don't see any merit in going that route.

Again, going from a position that it could be designed to it IS designed is a leap of faith.

But what if the person just isn't that smart or just hasn't thought about it that much? They see a light, they're convinced its aliens, end of story. Saying that they have faith in aliens is making a different statement than saying a person has faith in Jesus (to continue wiht the example).

I don't think you should be calling that alien-convincing a matter of faith as if it was like having faith in Jesus. Too, I don't see the merit in watering down the meaning of faith so that it can be applied to the poorly thought out conclusion of an Intelligent Designer. Especially if it comes from something the person witnessed that convinced them of the position, as opposed to simply believing in something without evidence at all.

quote:Faith is a personnal experience that only the individual knows if they're employing or not. If someone was convinced by some thing that an Intelligent Designer exists, and they were not employing faith in their maintanence of the belief that the designer exists, then they are not taking the designer on faith. Regardless of how good their evidence is, or if you can make their argument look like a statement of faith, it really comes down to how they've come to accept the belief.

A belief being a matter of faith is a personal issue that only the holder of the belief can know if they're relying on faith to maintain it, or if they've been convinced of it by something they've witnessed. It doesn't matter if you can whittle it down to a leap of "faith", or show that its a poor deduction, or that the evidence is wanting... What matters is how and why they beleive it.

I still think its possible for someone to come to a conclusion of ID without having to rely on faith to get there.

I still think its possible for someone to come to a conclusion of ID without having to rely on faith to get there.

Poor reasoning, inability to discern good evidence from bad, lack of understanding, an indifferent attitude that is open to change if exposed to the facts that one is unaware of.....

Any belief can be based on all manner of things that are not faith.

If RAZ is simply saying that there is no objective empirical evidence in favour of ID then fair enough. But he could have done that without the whole "Who designed the designer" angle. And the idea that he has provided a deductive logical proof that belief in ID must be based on faith is just silly.

People have believed in all manner of things - From a luminiferous ether to the genuineness of piltdown man - Is RAZ saying that everything is believed on faith until scientifically confirmed as correct?

quote:In science we make one "faith-based" assumption that the objective empirical evidence is representative of reality, then follow the trail of objective empirical evidence with logical reasoning to determine what is most likely to be true. We infer with inductive logic to determine (hypothesize) what we think might be true, and deduce tests to check the hypothesis. Anything not contradicted by invalidating evidence is possible to be true, but is still only hypothetical unless confirming evidence is available to give it tentative support.

A theory is a tested hypothesis, tested by objective empirical evidence, where the hypothesis passes validation tests and survived invalidation tests. Even then, after many tests, a theory is still a tentative explanation for observed objective empirical evidence.

quote:I have not said it is a dichotomy. The reason that I mention the fact that ID is not science is because IDologists frequently claim that it is -- not because there is no middle grey area between science and faith, especially religious faith - definition #4 - which is where I see your position on faith leaning, and where I see ID being, because it is based on a priori beliefs.

There is a spectrum of beliefs, from pure science to pure faith, where science is supported by objective empirical evidence, and faith is not supported by logic nor evidence. In between we have experiences we believe are true, they are based on the evidence of our experience, but do not meet the rigor of testing and attempts to invalidate concepts that is part of pure science.

Now here is where I have trouble with the average argument from design approach -- the assumption (faith) that it supports (only?) one specific faith. Please see Is ID properly pursued? for my discussion of this aspect and the potential pitfalls of an incomplete commitment to the design argument.

RAZD, that did sound bias, what I mean is, as a person of "faith" being a Christian, i'ts my opinion based on observation, that a designer is responsible for Creation.

A buddist or a pantheist could both look at the Mona Lisa and decide the painting was a deliberate act, minus the evidence one would need for (ID) to be a Scientific theory. You can make simple observations and conclude design is a worthy option.

I guess it lines up with your post on ID/Deism which I have a few thoughts on, i'll comment over there.

RAZD, that did sound bias, what I mean is, as a person of "faith" being a Christian, i'ts my opinion based on observation, that a designer is responsible for Creation.

A buddist or a pantheist could both look at the Mona Lisa and decide the painting was a deliberate act, minus the evidence one would need for (ID) to be a Scientific theory. You can make simple observations and conclude design is a worthy option.

The difference being that Mona Lisa's do not reproduce. Life does. We can observe artists producing paintings. In fact, the only observation we have of paintings being produced is through human activity. Furthermore, many of us see religions as another manifestation of humanity's creative imagination. So I would tend to think that we designed the Creator, not the other way around.

RAZD in his OP seems to think he has provided some sort of deductive logical proof that belief in ID must be faith based rather than the result of poor reasoning, inability to discern good evidence from poor....or any number of other conceivable causes.

But as far as I can tell his definition of "faith" simply entails there being an absence of genuine objective empirical evidence and has little to do with why people actually believe the silly things that they do.

So this thread ultimately boils down to pointing out that there is no actual objective empirical scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design.

Which could have been done without all the additional complications of deductive proofs or desigenrs of designers.

So this thread ultimately boils down to pointing out that there is no actual objective empirical scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design.

The bigger point is that that makes ID a form of faith. That having "actual objective empirical scientific evidence" makes something no longer a position of faith and because ID lacks it, then what is left over must be a form of faith. That is, unless someone can come up with another explanation (which the thread invites).

What if the person in question honestly and genuinely (albeit erroneously) believes that they do have "actual objective empirical evidence" for Intelligent Design is that belief still a form of faith?

They'd be having faith that they have actual objective empirical evidence due to the nature of the designer that they believe in, as outlined in the OP.

Were those who believed in the existence of a luminiferous ether believing on the basis of faith? What about those who believed that Piltdown man was the "missing link"....?

No, not them. This is about the Designer, itself, being the thing that would require faith because of how its proposed... with the whole not-being-designed-itself deal that you get from IDists.

CS writes:

Also, he's using "faith" in a looser sense...

Rather all-encompassing I would say.

Excepting things that can be shown via "actual objective empirical evidence". The point here being that because the Designer's nature (as described by IDists) necessitates that "actual objective empirical evidence" for it cannot be had, then by default (or de facto as its was put) it would have to be left as a form of "faith".

It makes sense... but I don't like the definition of the term 'faith' as it is being used.

Were those who believed in the existence of a luminiferous ether believing on the basis of faith? What about those who believed that Piltdown man was the "missing link"....?

No, not them.

OK. So as long as one genuinely believes that there is objective empirical scientific evidence it isn't faith. Right?

CS writes:

This is about the Designer, itself, being the thing that would require faith because of how its proposed... with the whole not-being-designed-itself deal that you get from IDists.

Well let's consider a hypothetical IDist. An IDist who has genuinely concluded ID on the basis of what he genuinely (albeit wrongly) considers to be objective empirical scientific evidence. He is asked - "Who designed the designer?"

After some thought our evidence based IDist responds - "I don't know. But parsimoniously I guess something has to exist first. And there is good evidence for a designer so it might as well be that designer. If any evidence of a prior designer to that one comes to my knowledge I will revise my answer accordingly".

Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be).

After some thought our evidence based IDist responds - "I don't know. But parsimoniously I guess something has to exist first. And there is good evidence for a designer so it might as well be that designer. If any evidence of a prior designer to that one comes to my knowledge I will revise my answer accordingly".

Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be).

Do you think this is faith?

It's absolutely faith.

In the end, what is religion other than "my brain hurts, I give up"?

Seriously. Think about it.

Go to anyone and ask them "why?". Keep repeating the question ceaselessly. No matter what answer they give you, pick either a noun or verb from than answer and ask "why" about it.

Eventually the person you are asking wants you to stop. So they say, "It just is!" or "Because God said so!".

That's it. That's the ENTIRE purpose of religion, to get people to stop asking questions that other people can't answer.

So, someone claims there's a designer. You ask who designed the designer? If they say "A designer before him", you just keep repeating the question endlessly.

Eventually, they are going to say there was a magical wizard who was the first designer and that they don't need to explain where he came from because it's magic.